Claiming copyright on fan videos means that ad revenue will go to Nintendo instead of the video's creators.

Nintendo is reportedly flexing its YouTube copyright muscle by issuing "content ID match" claims on "Let's Play" videos featuring its game franchises. Prolific YouTuber Zack Scott, who is currently playing Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, claims that Nintendo has made content claims on several of his videos, meaning ad revenue received from those videos will instead go to Nintendo rather than Scott. It's a pretty jerk move from Nintendo, as although it is true that Scott is uploading gameplay from its games, his viewers watch his gameplay videos to hear his commentary and review, and it seems unfair that Nintendo should simply take all the ad revenue when he's the one putting in the hard-yards maintaining a fanbase.

"Since I started my gaming channel, I've played a lot of games. I love Nintendo, so I've included their games in my line-up," said Scott, warning that until Nintendo's claims are straightened out, he won't be playing its games. "I won't because it jeopardizes my channel's copyright standing and the livelihood of all LPers."

Several other YouTubers, including Thomas Was Alone creator Mike Bithel, have chimed in, also claiming that Nintendo is making content ID match claims on their videos, According to popular gaming video conglomerate Machinima, Nintendo's claims have been increasing recently, and they appear to be doing it deliberately.

Nintendo has issued GameFront the following statement in relation to the copyright claims:

"As part of our on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way, we became a YouTube partner and as such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database. For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property."

The statement seems to be a rather curt "be thankful we didn't just block you guys" rather than an actual explanation of why they feel they can steal people's ad revenue.

Content ID matches are less severe than 'copyright strikes,' which YouTube issues a channel after processing a verified request for the full removal of a video by the copyright owner. When a content owner issues a Content ID match, it allows them to monetize that video with in-video ads, block it in certain countries, or even block it from playing worldwide. If a channel receives too many Content ID matches, it can lose its "good standing," which would hinder YouTubers from making money off any of their videos.

This is incredibly short sighted... I've bought many games because I saw people playing them on youtube, games I would never even heard of or even considered buying and I'm sure I can't be the only one.

Youtube is basically free marketing but now Nintendo actually wants to be PAID for the privilege of doing marketing for them? Fuck 'em

Turns out this is not a unique thing. In fact, this is industry wide practice. Nintendo have simply finally decided to do what the rest of the industry already does. If you read the terms of Youtube's monetization service it says:

This is something that other publishers have already been following. This is the reason why networks like Machinima have licensing agreements with game companies in the first place. This is, at this point, standard industry practise, and I think it reflects poorly on every journalist who took this and tried to portray it as some unique attempt by Nintendo to shut down Lets Plays.

Removed the rest of my post, as at this point, it's irrelevant. Nintendo are simply doing what every other game company does. The only exceptions that I can see are Valve, Minecraft and FTL.

So to everyone huffing and saying how they're going to swear off Nintendo for this, I hope this is now going to extend to every other publisher or developer working in the industry.

If I was a let's player, I would simply replace all my commentary on nintendo-related videos with unrelated swears of the highest order, completely irrelevant to the game and gamplay an play some really annoying music over it to top it of.

It's also worth noting that for every person who says "I bought ___ because of an LP I watched" there's another person who admits "I ended up not buying ____ because I watched an LP instead." On the Reddit thread on the topic, there are people who admit not buying The Walking Dead, 2012's GOTY just to remind you, because they watched an LP online instead, and didn't feel the need to then buy it having seen the story play out.

There are very real issues regarding copyright when it comes to LPs and how they affect sales, and I can't blame Nintendo for this when all they're doing is stopping profiting from their games, not stopping people posting videos altogether. If someone is dependent on LPs for their livelihood, I'd ask why they're not making original game video content as well?

People have been doing gameplay commentaries with Nintendo's games for years, but just now they're doing this? I think there might be something more going on here. They've been losing money on the WiiU and until recently, the 3DS. I think this is more along the lines of desperation on the execs' part than anything else. When in the red, Nintendo traditionally fights in the dirtiest manner possible. I expect more of this behavior, especially if the WiiU continues to perform as it is right now.

Ever since they came up with the Wii it seems that they're trying to alienate core gamers as much as possible.

Also, YouTube has become very unfriendly to small content creators. Changes to YouTube's search algorithm prioritize corporate-owned content and makes the visibility of small content creators much smaller than in the past.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:It's also worth noting that for every person who says "I bought ___ because of an LP I watched" there's another person who admits "I ended up not buying ____ because I watched an LP instead."

For every trailer a company puts out the same equal reactions are met.

I have done both from lets plays, one has made me a steady customer of a game series I had no idea even existed until I saw a lets play. Another turned me off a game entirely.

(Let me break this down for you, if you make GOOD GAMES. This kind of thing is extremely beneficial to you when someone is talking it up while playing it. If you're a hollow company with nothing of worth to consumers at the moment, you're covering your ass by screaming copyright!! and preventing people from seeing how mediocre your product is as much as possible. This is the real reason. Nothing else)

Lets plays are something entertaining to put on when I am drawing.If Nintendo wants out of that. Fine. Pay for all your advertising, no skin off our noses when no one cares when you put out yet another shitty mario game. I would hope this causes a wider boycott of Nintendo coverage on the popular YTers. We don't need to give them attention when they clearly don't want it.

i hope this will backfire. either by boycott, "voting with your wallet" approach or just by drop in their sales thanks to lower advertisement of their products/trademark (IMO let's plays are free ads).f*^& them, no money from me

PS actually LP creator should sue Nintendo for not paying for advertisement of their games

robogief (Reddit):This is ridiculous. Even though companies own the game, they do not own individuals' pictures or recordings of those games. Media producers do have a strong claim to clips of movies and TV shows because they are the same form of media. However, a youtube gameplay video is obviously not a copy of the game itself. It's like taking a picture of a car and then having the automobile's producer receive the revenue.

Another one...

VinchenzRock (reddit):Its not just LPers too, my review videos were hit. This could affect anyone who uploads any kind of Nintendo-related videos.

... Well THAT seems to be giving a big middle finger to fair use to me!

Yes Nintendo we got the message. You didn't have to bullshit around it, I guess you REALLY wanted to join SEGA on the Youtube LP ban list, I guess NintenDOES what SEGA did. Enjoy nobody playing your games on youtube anymore. I feel bad for a few Nintendo specific youtuber though, they are going to be screwed over by this pretty hard.

The good news is everyone will probably jump ship to a different videohost, so it might equally harm youtube and they will finally have to stop sucking every copyright holders cock and sometimes actually stand up for the people that provide them with content. Fair Use has not been upheld for a LONG time on youtube, maybe they will have to step up their game once people start claiming that pictures of the cats they sold to other people also belong to them and all revenue must go to the pet stores.

Right or not, the LP'ers will simply drop all their Nintendo based videos and look elsewhere... I am 100% certain there are other publishers / developers that will welcome more fans and attention.I am pretty sure this move will bite Nintendo in the butt, and Nintendo will end up backing out and trying to encourage fans back into the fold.

This move is as bright PR wise as playing Russian roulette with a magazine fed pistol.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:It's also worth noting that for every person who says "I bought ___ because of an LP I watched" there's another person who admits "I ended up not buying ____ because I watched an LP instead."

For every trailer a company puts out the same equal reactions are met.

I have done both from lets plays, one has made me a steady customer of a game series I had no idea even existed until I saw a lets play. Another turned me off a game entirely.

(Let me break this down for you, if you make GOOD GAMES.

Yeah, stop right there. There is no such thiing as objectively good or objectively bad. Those things are subjective, and subject to differ among individual gamers. You can't claim 'good games' as some kind of objective standard to be applied in copyright cases, for the same reason film copyright isn't based on which films got the best reviews. When gamers cannot agree whether something is unanimously good or not, then any claim of using 'good games' as some kind of decider in copyright is just silly.

and preventing people from seeing how mediocre your product is as much as possible. This is the real reason. Nothing else)

Except that Nintendo went on record saying people are free to put up Lets Plays and footage of their games. They're just not free to profit from them. People who put up Lets Plays because they enjoy the games are not going to be affected in the slightest.

Yes Nintendo we got the message. You didn't have to bullshit around it, I guess you REALLY wanted to join SEGA on the Youtube LP ban list, I guess NintenDOES what SEGA did.

Nope. Sega actively got videos taken down from Youtube. Nintendo is just mandating you can't profit from extended footage of one of their games. Want to put up a video of Nintendo Land? Absolutely fine. Want to make money doing gaming videos? Put the effort in to make something original.

Enjoy nobody playing your games on youtube anymore.

LPers who play games for the fun of it will still put up videos on youtube. The majority of LPers aren't mercenaries only in it for the money. Most of them are fans of the games they play, and put up videos to share with other fans.

Fair Use has not been upheld for a LONG time on youtube, maybe they will have to step up their game once people start claiming that pictures of the cats they sold to other people also belong to them and all revenue must go to the pet stores.

Fair Use doesn't apply here. Fair Use is meant to apply to excerpts, quotes or parts of footage taken from other media, used for educational purposes, but interspersed with content created by the user themselves. The Jimquisition falls under Fair Use, as the snippets of gameplay are interspersed with Jim talking about stuff, and various pretty pictures of things.

Posting the entire single-player portion of the game, as many LPs do, is not the same thing. As that is no longer an excerpt, and it becomes arguable that the majority of the video content isn't the commentary put over the tip by the LPer, but the entire single player game created by the developer, in this case Nintendo.

Well I do suppose it would be a lot safer not to create review videos with game footage, screenshots or to even write about any nintendo product then if they even think about just claiming copyright ownership that way because "be glad we don't just get you blocked".

Right?

I mean this site IS your livelihood and they just scraped on the foundation of it all.

As part of our on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way, we became a YouTube partner and as such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database. For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:It's also worth noting that for every person who says "I bought ___ because of an LP I watched" there's another person who admits "I ended up not buying ____ because I watched an LP instead." On the Reddit thread on the topic, there are people who admit not buying The Walking Dead, 2012's GOTY just to remind you, because they watched an LP online instead, and didn't feel the need to then buy it having seen the story play out.

There are very real issues regarding copyright when it comes to LPs and how they affect sales, and I can't blame Nintendo for this when all they're doing is stopping profiting from their games, not stopping people posting videos altogether. If someone is dependent on LPs for their livelihood, I'd ask why they're not making original game video content as well?

wile i agree with your point on the walking dead i belive it would be, if not a unique issue, not as common as you imply to counter the argument. it might have lost sales as a direct result of LPs however it is heavily story driven and wile other games have strong story elements they have gameplay as well to back that up. so even if part or all of a story has been revealed you can still derive enjoyment from the action of playing out the story.

the other losses games could incure due to this is if a game is bad, getting a bad reaction from the LPer or not looking fun. in that regard youtube is very much like the playground. one kid gets a game over the weekend and then on monday at school they tell their friends if its worth playing or not. if its a handheld game maybe they take it in and show others a bit of them playing it. if its a popular game or they start doing it a lot then maybe they start charging their friends 20p to watch.

as has been said it seems more akin to free advertising than anything else thought i imagin as ever my viewpoint is skewed in favour of the little guy. i would have thought a more prudent move would have been to find the larger LPers and request certain limits on their work. say only so much game footage, more than fair use but not half the game, or limit the playthrough to early stages rather than the ending.

all this seems to do is alienate a section of their user base, not just the LPers but the people who watch and like them and so feel compassion towards the people negativly affected and lowers your games exposure after release they might still play the game but no longer make a video of it.

There are very real issues regarding copyright when it comes to LPs and how they affect sales, and I can't blame Nintendo for this when all they're doing is stopping profiting from their games, not stopping people posting videos altogether. If someone is dependent on LPs for their livelihood, I'd ask why they're not making original game video content as well?

1. This isn't about LPers profiting off Nintendo's games, it's about Nintendo doing this SOLELY so that THEY can profit of let's plays. They aren't doing this to "protect" anything, they're doing this out of greed.

2. People apparently like to watch Let's Plays. What's wrong with giving people what they want and letting Youtube put some ads on it and making some cash for themselves?It's like you're saying "Oh you work in an office? Well why don't you start your OWN business? Unless you do you don't deserve to get paid".

OT: It's like they're trying to make up for EA's conscience acting out this week.

I agree with this. People can still make Let's Plays, they just can't make money off of them, and I don't see what's wrong with that.

This false sense of entitlement to making money off of other peoples intellectual property is quite sickening to be honest. If Nintendo had said that they couldn't do them at all, that'd be another matter entirely.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:It's also worth noting that for every person who says "I bought ___ because of an LP I watched" there's another person who admits "I ended up not buying ____ because I watched an LP instead."

For every trailer a company puts out the same equal reactions are met.

I have done both from lets plays, one has made me a steady customer of a game series I had no idea even existed until I saw a lets play. Another turned me off a game entirely.

(Let me break this down for you, if you make GOOD GAMES.

Yeah, stop right there. There is no such thiing as objectively good or objectively bad. Those things are subjective, and subject to differ among individual gamers. You can't claim 'good games' as some kind of objective standard to be applied in copyright cases, for the same reason film copyright isn't based on which films got the best reviews. When gamers cannot agree whether something is unanimously good or not, then any claim of using 'good games' as some kind of decider in copyright is just silly.

Congratulations you've just responded yourself into a corner. If this entire affair is subjective to the individual than what detriment is MORE exposure to the game? If they've nothing to hide, what difference is it to someone staring over their friends shoulder at the game, or expecting 'paid companies' to exhibition gameplay. Films and Games no longer sit in the same categories anymore, this comparison is moot. One is a 20+ hour interactive time sink, very small percentages are going to sit through the entire playthrough. Movies are designed to be one time sit throughs and observed only. Games are an interactive media and cannot be experienced merely through watching, tell any person watching their friend play a game and you'll know for a FACT the fun is in the commentary and discussion, all the 'gaming enjoyment' is achieved by the person playing.

All of this is free advertising. End of. The person player may have a subjective opinion that sways watchers over the quality of the content in the game, but at the end of it, you are STILL merely snuffing out free exposure. The watchers are not playing the game, they are merely observing and listening, the same thing that the companies themselves do at e3 but on a grander and more efficient scale.

Do you wanna know how many of my brothers friends (aged 9) have gone back to play the old sonic games MERELY because they saw a lets play of it online. All of them. Every single one, begged me to point it out to them on Steam so they could all play it and try all the fun hidden secrets and glitches they'd seen demonstrated online.

Forgive me if your comparisons fall short on me, because I still believe this is a stupid stupid stupid move. And nothing will convince me otherwise when I've seen it work to such availment as a positive for these idiotic companies.

If your entire game experience IS only credible in the 'watching it' then congrats, you've made a shitty 'game'. And that my friend, is anything but subjective. For some it might be, but they they should know what kind of 'games' they enjoy anyway. If all they feel like doing is watching them, then I must question why the movie or tv industry has failed to cater to their needs and exploit that niche somehow...

There are very real issues regarding copyright when it comes to LPs and how they affect sales, and I can't blame Nintendo for this when all they're doing is stopping profiting from their games, not stopping people posting videos altogether. If someone is dependent on LPs for their livelihood, I'd ask why they're not making original game video content as well?

1. This isn't about LPers profiting off Nintendo's games, it's about Nintendo doing this SOLELY so that THEY can profit of let's plays. They aren't doing this to "protect" anything, they're doing this out of greed.

Except that its their game. Why shouldn't they profit from it? What is it that LPers add which is so original it turns the video from Nintendo's content into their own? I don't count stream-of-consciousness rambling, as that hardly counts as something you 'compose'.

2. People apparently like to watch Let's Plays. What's wrong with giving people what they want and letting Youtube put some ads on it and making some cash for themselves?

Why do people feel they should be paid for playing someone else's game in the first place? Game reviewers at least put the time into writing and filming reviews, which count as original composed content. Why should filming my average co-op session on a game with some friends all of a sudden entitle me to make money from a game? All I've done is hit 'Record' on an otherwise normal session of gaming. Since when does that entitle me to money?

loa:Well I do suppose it would be a lot safer not to create review videos with game footage, screenshots or to even write about any nintendo product then if they even think about just claiming copyright ownership that way because "be glad we don't just get you blocked".

Right?

I mean this site IS your livelihood and they just scraped on the foundation of it all.

Except that all those things are covered under Fair Use. Footage of sections of gameplay is fine when balanced out with original material. Posting the entire singleplay campaign of a game up on Youtube is not the same thing. You're not posting an excerpt of footage from the game there, you're posting the entire damn game.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:It's also worth noting that for every person who says "I bought ___ because of an LP I watched" there's another person who admits "I ended up not buying ____ because I watched an LP instead."

For every trailer a company puts out the same equal reactions are met.

I have done both from lets plays, one has made me a steady customer of a game series I had no idea even existed until I saw a lets play. Another turned me off a game entirely.

(Let me break this down for you, if you make GOOD GAMES.

Yeah, stop right there. There is no such thiing as objectively good or objectively bad. Those things are subjective, and subject to differ among individual gamers. You can't claim 'good games' as some kind of objective standard to be applied in copyright cases, for the same reason film copyright isn't based on which films got the best reviews. When gamers cannot agree whether something is unanimously good or not, then any claim of using 'good games' as some kind of decider in copyright is just silly.

I don't think that is what Charli is talking about. I agree there is no objectively good/bad game everyone can agree on. However I think what Charli was meaning that some people watch LPs (Lets Plays) of games to evaluate whether the game would be enjoyable for them.

Its a variation on the whole issue with used/pirated games debacle. Some people buy used games or pirate games to "try" out the game, to see if it would entertainment them enough. Since some developers/publishers like to villianize used game sales and piracy is still seen as an stealing, the next best option people have for judging whether a game is worth their time is reviews or LPs. What is considered a good/bad game is in the eyes of the gamer, and some might watch a few LPs to judge whether they should open up their wallet for a game (I know I did this a few times before purchasing a game).

If your entire game experience IS only credible in the 'watching it' then congrats, you've made a shitty 'game'. And that my friend, is anything but subjective. For some it might be,

which is the very definition of subjective. Facts are objective. Opinions are subjective. Where two people disagree over an opinion, such as the example you give, is a case of subjectivity in action.

If this entire affair is subjective to the individual than what detriment is MORE exposure to the game?

Decreased sales? People have said on Reddit that they didn't purchase The Walking Dead because they watched an LP on Youtube. This is a game that won GOTY awards left, right and centre. When a game that popular can still have people opting not to buy it, then it's time to admit that LPs are at least in a difficult place in terms of copyright. They use all the exact same assets from the game, created by the developer, and many people use them as a free alternative.

Games are an interactive media and cannot be experienced merely through watching,

Except that interactivity in games happens in most instances in very limited parameters already firmly set up by the developer. Outside of games like Dwarf Fortress, you're not creating anything new. You're simply following the script the developers laid down.

And things like the single-player story, the music, the level design can still be experienced by watching. Hence why some people actually use them as an alternative to buying the game.

All of this is free advertising. End of.

Except you've not provided definitive evidence that LPs raise sales of a game.

The person player may have a subjective opinion that sways watchers over the quality of the content in the game, but at the end of it, you are STILL merely snuffing out free exposure.

How can Nintendo be snuffing out free exposure when they're still actively allowing people to post LP videos? They're just not letting people profit from them directly.

But then comes the argument that some people do not go to certain Let's Players not for the video they are showing but for the person who is talking. By nintendo doing this, they are saying that "No. You only care about our games that are playing", which is not always true. They are profiting off other people's personalities.

This is pretty common actually. For most of the game commentators who are really getting a lot of money from it are only allowed to do it because the organisation they work for (I.E The Game Station, Machinima) can get them permission. Jesse Cox talked about how the reason he's allowed to make any money from LP's is because TGS got him permission to do it. Otherwise, his videos would be shut down if he monetized them.

Some companies and games (Minecraft, FTL, and valve games off the top of my head) will let anyone make videos and use it for money. However most of the time, if you're making money of LP's and you don't have permission, companies will get pissed.

Still a dick move, but it's not the "OMG NINTENDO ARE EVIL SONS OF BITCHES" that I've seen going around. This isn't very uncommon. I'm pretty sure youtubers like Chuggaaconroy who are part of a company are still able to get money off it, aren't they? That's my understanding of it, and that's really no different from most companies. If I started making Guild Wars 2 footage and monetizing it for instance, I'd be shut down or told to not monetize.

If people working for TGS and Machinima can't monetize, then this is a terrible decision, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. As it stands, they are acting the same as most companies.

Steven Bogos:although it is true that Scott is uploading gameplay from its games, his viewers watch his gameplay videos to hear his commentary and review, and it seems unfair that Nintendo should simply take all the ad revenue when he's the one putting in the hard-yards maintaining a fanbase.

Yeah...no. He's using their stuff. Just because someone works hard to get a fanbase using someone else's stuff doesn't mean they are entitled to it. You can't say the fans are just interested in his ramblings, otherwise he could just as easily make them without gameplay footage.

Oh, FFS, guys. Why do you have to read malice into everything Nintendo does when it isn't even there?

1. Remember 343 Industries? Halo 4? How you're not allowed to make money off of their game? Any of that ring a bell? Why is Nintendo suddenly the Antichrist for being the "first" company to do a thing like this?

2. Remember Sega? Shining Force? Taking down everything to do with it with no plans to actually work on the series? Any of that ring a bell? Nintendo isn't taking down the videos. Heck, they outright said that they were avoiding it. So what's the big deal?

3. You can't swing a cat in Youtube without hitting an advert - and most of that money goes to Google anyway. If ads matter that much to you, use Adblock or something.

4. As much as I hate current copyright law, this sort of thing is an acceptable use of it to me. Nintendo does actually own the images being used, and it's their right to do something like this, particularly if people are making money off of it. If they were sending out DMCA notices for every little thing, then I'd be on your side. As it is, you guys are being completely irrational here.

Why is it that everyone else gets a bit of notice and then nothing, but Nintendo can't donate money to charity without being flamed about donating to the Red Cross rather than Child's Play? I know that's extreme, but so are your comments. Tone it down a little. Nintendo have done plenty of stuff that you don't have to work to find reasons to yell about.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:It's also worth noting that for every person who says "I bought ___ because of an LP I watched" there's another person who admits "I ended up not buying ____ because I watched an LP instead."

For every trailer a company puts out the same equal reactions are met.

The difference is that the company itself designs and releases the trailer. And the trailer doesn't contain all of the major plot twists, reveals, or other "payoff" moments that you would only get by seeing the movie. LPs of story-driven games take a lot of the surprise out, and it's often enough for some folks not to feel like buying the game -- they've already gotten to experience the story.

In this case, a player (not the company) is making a video. That player is not just "spoiling" content, but also using Nintendo's work, slapping their own name on it, and then making money on that. Why should they get to make that money? What work have they done on that content?

It's not their commentary, or people would watch a "Let's Just Talk" from that person over a "Let's Play." It's not their video editing, as it mostly involves showing gameplay footage and making elementary annotations. They're watching it because of the game content.

Now, you'll notice that companies like Nintendo aren't causing the global takedown of walk-throughs, cheat lists, hint guides, etc. Why? Because those don't feature the entire game's content, and the makers aren't making lots of money from that content.

Most copyright laws allow the use of footage like that for the purposes of criticism and review, don't they? I'd have thought LPs fell into that category. As with most cases like this though, it's the big company cracking down on people who don't have the resources to defend their position.

It would be more understandable if Nintendo had just decided to stop potential breaches of copyright, but actually fucking stealing people's money? I know nobody gives a shit about the Wii U, guys, but there have to be better ways to boost revenue.

There are very real issues regarding copyright when it comes to LPs and how they affect sales, and I can't blame Nintendo for this when all they're doing is stopping profiting from their games, not stopping people posting videos altogether. If someone is dependent on LPs for their livelihood, I'd ask why they're not making original game video content as well?

1. This isn't about LPers profiting off Nintendo's games, it's about Nintendo doing this SOLELY so that THEY can profit of let's plays. They aren't doing this to "protect" anything, they're doing this out of greed.

Except that its their game. Why shouldn't they profit from it? What is it that LPers add which is so original it turns the video from Nintendo's content into their own? I don't count stream-of-consciousness rambling, as that hardly counts as something you 'compose'.

2. People apparently like to watch Let's Plays. What's wrong with giving people what they want and letting Youtube put some ads on it and making some cash for themselves?

Why do people feel they should be paid for playing someone else's game in the first place? Game reviewers at least put the time into writing and filming reviews, which count as original composed content. Why should filming my average co-op session on a game with some friends all of a sudden entitle me to make money from a game? All I've done is hit 'Record' on an otherwise normal session of gaming. Since when does that entitle me to money?

They already do profit from their games. They SELL them for crying out loud. Let's Players are pretty much giving them free advertising!!! And in case you didn't already know, Nintendo isn't paying them ANYTHING. (Nor should they)

And why do you feel that people should not be paid for putting out content that there is a demand for? It's not about Reviewers being more original, never was, but you've brought it up for no apparent reason.

On one hand, this is not a community-friendly move. Then again, if you're doing a Let's Play for money, why are you doing an LP? It's all a thick, grey line. I'll also be the first to admit that I don't know how copyright laws work.

EDIT: The whole "I'm Let's Playing This Game For Money" issue is the reason why I stopped watching TotalBiscuit's content; in several videos he continued to say that he was only playing certain games because he, "had to," not because he genuinely cared about the game in question or wanted to play the game. To me, that's not the reason that a person should be doing an LP.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:I said this more or less in the other thread on the topic, but I'll say it again here- hitting 'record' on a gaming session and punctuating with with occasional swear words or "WTF!" does not equal the same as creating original content.

I wouldn't be able to post the entirety of the Hobbit online with my ramblings over the top, nor would I be able to post then entirety of Daft Punk's new album with me talking over the top. In both cases, I'd get hit with a takedown notice pretty damn quick.

When you're doing an LP of a Nintendo game, you're using Nintendo's content. Sorry, Fair Use doesn't apply to posting whole sections/the entire game up online. Fair Use is meant to apply to small snippets or excerpts used for a specific purpose. Posting the entirety of a game falls outside of Fair Use. And I'm sorry, but most LPs I've seen hardly had witty original commentary over the top.

Fair Use isn't, and never has been about quality. If it was, then we wouldn't have that Movie Movie franchise, and the world would probably be a better place, at least for that. Fair Use is about specific circumstances where copyright does not apply.

The catch is, as much as developers and publishers want them to be, games aren't movies. This falls under the transformative clause of Fair Use. If a game is nothing but a non-interactive ten hour movie, then sure, whatever, it's infringement, but the thing is, games aren't.

If we go back to your Daft Punk analogy, if you take the entire album and remix it, it is, or at least, should be, Fair Use. Of course, we live in an era when the RIAA and MPAA go fucking batshit at the very prospect of Fair Use existing as a concept.

Now, you might not like it. But your opinions don't render something as non-fair use.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s: If you want to make money from gaming, but don't want to actually make games, then try your hardest to make original content worth watching, a la Jim Sterling, Yahtzee, Moviebob. Those guys use hardly any game footage at all, and what they do use easily falls under Fair Use. I enjoy Adam Sessler's videos, and all he does is stand in front of a camera and ramble. I think he's (mostly) informative and intelligent, and I hope he makes a good living from videos like that.

Someone hitting record on a regular game session and expecting to get paid? Sorry, you've got limited sympathy from me if you're trying to profit like that from someone else's game. Try actually creating something to make money from.

As it is, Nintendo are still supporting LPs, so it's not like they're hitting everyone with takedown notices. They're just not letting other people profit from using their stuff.

The problem is of course, LPs are a kind of performance art. Nintendo isn't actually playing the game, offering cometary, which, if anyone is actually watching, better be entertaining in its own right, cutting the video together, which is a hell of a lot more involved than you seem to understand. And, at the end of the day, Nintendo wanders in, claims everything for their work.

Not a cut of the ad revenue, all of it.

Oh, and remember, there's no prohibition against public performances of games. Because, again, as much as the developers would like them to be, games are not films.